Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Finland/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC).

List of World Heritage Sites in Finland

 * Nominator(s): Tone 09:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

With Denmark promoted and Norway getting in shape, Finland is next in the series of sites from Northern Europe. I started paying more attention to the alt text for images since the last discussion. The style of the article is following the previous ones. Tone 09:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Source and image reviews
 * Both pass. Sources look reliable and spot checks check out. Images are free and I added FoP-Finland tags where appropriate. buidhe 10:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * This should have a longer lead so it can stand alone. I'm looking at List of World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom in comparison which goes into some more detail about the types of sites and the country's relationship to UNESCO. I don't see any issues with the table though. Reywas92Talk 00:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I expanded the intro. --Tone 16:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Conditional support. I think there's enough overlap with the parent list List of World Heritage Sites in Northern Europe that it might be a 3c problem, but I don't have enough experience to make the call on that. I made an edit to address one point, and I see that you were given conflicting advice in a previous list so I struck the other point. We're good to go. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * "the church was abandoned as a newer church was built nearby, so the old church remained well preserved". This is a non-sequitur. Abandonment is normally a reason for neglect, not for preservation.
 * Rewrote according to the source. I suppose they still did general maintenance but not major restructuring while it was not used.
 * The source says "The church is well preserved due to the fact that it was abandoned in the late 19th century, as the new parish church was built, and did not suffer from major alterations such as the installation of heating systems." This clarifies that it was not well preserved because it was neglected, which you seem to say. Maybe "The original features are well preserved because the church went out of use and therefore was not modernised by the addition of features such as heating systems."
 * Good point, I like this.


 * The link to the Last Glacial Period is wrong. It should be the Last Glacial Maximum.
 * Makes sense, changed.
 * It is worth spelling out that the reason for the post-glacial rebound is the removal of the weight of the glaciers.
 * Added.
 * How about for an image for the Gaddtarmen  carvings?
 * Great, added.
 * Why is Kvarken not linked?
 * In the location column? Because it is already linked in the name, I wanted to avoid overlinking.
 * The descriptions are very good. Some of the images do not give a good idea of the site even though better ones are available in the Commons categories for the sites. This applies to Old Rauma, Suomenlinna and Verla. The Struve image may be relevant but if so this should be explained in the file description of the image. See for alternatives. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I changed the images for Verla and old Rauma. The Suomenlinna aerial looks informative to me. For the Struve, the description is in the file - that the church is one of the markers.
 * I see now that there is a description if you hover over the file, but I would expect it - with a reference - in the file description on opening File:Alatornio 3 2015 Copy.JPG, which has a blank file description. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I now added a link to the church article, the UNESCO reference mentions it on the map tab. --Tone 09:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Done, please have a look. Excellent review, as always. --Tone 14:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Support from KJP1
Certainly meets the FL criteria to my mind. A few comments/observations below, but nothing to stand in the way of Support. KJP1 (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * I still wonder whether this is a bit on the short side. Perhaps a slight expansion of the final para., actually just a sentence, to give a bit more detail on what a "tentative list" is?
 * Images
 * Agree with Dudley, especially in relation to Old Rauma. I think the image in that article better shows the buildings, and it doesn't include the distracting cyclist!
 * Descriptions
 * Fortress of Suomenlinna - "The fortress, which spans over six islands" - does this mean it covers six islands, in which case could the "over" go? Or does it mean it covers more than six islands, in which case I'd say that?
 * Bronze Age Burial Site of Sammallahdenmäki - "but are now further inland due to the rising land". I think this is Dudley's point above. For a non-specialist like me, while rising sea-levels are an understood concept, rising land-levels are not. Could it be expanded a bit? You do explain it two descriptions down, but I'd suggest the clarification comes at the first encounter.
 * The Rock paintings of Astuvansalmi at Ristiina - "The paintings in red ochre on a steep bedrock above the lake Yövesi depict humans, moose, boats, and hand prints" - are these actually paintings of hand prints, or just hand prints? If, as I suspect, the latter, then, "The paintings in red ochre on a steep bedrock above the lake Yövesi depict humans, moose and boats. Hand prints are also visible."
 * The Holy place of worship of Ukonsaari by the Sami people at Inari - "was used for sactificial purposes" - typo, I think.
 * Saimaa-Pielinen Lake System - "This is a part of a serial nomination" - not getting "serial" nomination. Group nomination?


 * Thank you for the review. As for the tentative list in the intro, what this list is is explained more in detail later on. For the rising land, there is a longer explanation at Kvarken, I am not sure if it makes sense to repeat it? The Saimaa-Pielinen is supposedly a nomination of more than one country, yes, but the source is so bad that it is hard to write anything more detailed. This is often a problem with older entries to the tentative list, they seem like placeholders. I changed some pictures and fixed the text as you suggested. --Tone 14:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. -- Pres N  22:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.